Greetings again. Andrew's and Yoav's last comments indicate a dislike for the idea that the canonical RFC format might be "code" like HTML or XML because those formats are not meant for reading. My proposal for "one canonical, many display" formats assumes that anyone who wants to read an RFC will read it in a format they like, and that format is not likely to be the canonical format. (To be clear, someone doesn't normally *read* an HTML file, they display it in an HTML rendering program like a browser.)
Yoav suggests that there be a preferred display format. I don't see a value in publicly preferring any of the formats, and I explicitly reject the idea that we need to become junior lawyers and try to guess what some court in some country would or would not understand.
People may be thinking historically about how RFCs are gotten: using a URL that ends in ".txt". My proposal is that the canonical URL for an RFC leads to a page that gives all the display options, including grabbing the canonical document itself. This is a "one extra click" operation. People who use RFCs regularly would be able to go instantly to getting an RFC in their preferred viewing format knowing the naming convention, giving a "no extra click" operation for repeat users who understand patterns.
--Paul Hoffman